Local stations in the West to be axed?

[whole diary]

[LiskeardRich]

A hell of a lot of people from Cornwall drive to Exeter or Tivvy to get trains to London to save about an hour and a half on the journey. Par can be busy also when there is a connection from Newquay. But the likes of Hayle, Lostwithiel, St Germans and Saltash really dont warrant the extra messing around which will get all the user groups up in arms but it's true, and there is no reason why every London train needs to call at Camborne, Redruth, St Austell, Par and Liskeard.

Myself included here, is about 100 mins drive from mine to tiverton parkway, compared to an average train journey of 195 mins from St Erth to Tiverton Parkway

[Trowres]

So thanks to the massive expenditure on roads there's not much point keeping the railway?

[woody]

So thanks to the massive expenditure on roads there's not much point keeping the railway?

The Victorian rail infrastructure limitations west of Exeter when compared to todays fast modern trunk roads are inevitably becoming a determining factor in peoples longer distance travel choices from Cornwall and even Plymouth as the 21st century unfolds.Even the DFt has recognized these changing long distance 21st century travel patterns from Cornwall in the Great Western ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) document with its proposed reduction from 9 to 6 through Paddington/Penzance HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) saying that some of the current HSTs through Cornwall have become little more than local commuter trains as Vacman has already pointed out.If the slow Exeter to Plymouth line is a low national investment priority then the Plymouth to Penzance line must be completely off the Dfts national rail infrastructure radar.Even Cornwall County Council recognizes this reality by demanding at least a half hourly regional service between Penzance/Plymouth/Exeter.Unfortunately the combined consequences of a century of no real rail infrastructure improvements west of Exeter together with John Majors expensively botched rail privatisation are now coming home to roost for us in the far South West particularly in our post 2008 global financial meltdown austere world.No one is suggesting for one moment that rail is not needed in Cornwall merely that the railways will have to adapt their offering to reflect the new financial and infrastructure realities and that sadly that means an increasing emphasis on regional rather national rail services in places like Cornwall.

[Milky Bar Kid]

The report itself is poor at that, using the headline stations to close altogether, im not aware of any stations that have less than 2 stops so this is not relevant at all, also the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) states that the new franchisee must assume ticket office hours will remain as they are until they seek permission from dft for reductions. So this is devon is wrong again.

[vacman]

Woody is basically right, the Cornish mainline has seen massive passenger increases but i bet the average mileage per pax is about 25 miles, a few fast services is the only way to really compete with the car. ply-pnz can be done in around 75 mins with 3 stops that is a hell of a time saving without any investment in infrastructure. the other option could be tilting trains to shave a few minutes here and there.

[Zoe]

There are also quite a few stops east of Plymouth, do most trains from Penzance to London really need to stop at Totnes and Tiverton Parkway?  Does everything except the up Cornish Riviera need to stop at Newton Abbot?  Could Taunton calls be removed from any services?

As for running trains fast from Penzance to Plymouth calling only at Truro, I can see this discouraging rail use if journey times are extended by people from other stations having to change at Truro or Plymouth.

[ellendune]

There are also quite a few stops east of Plymouth, do most trains from Penzance to London really need to stop at Totnes and Tiverton Parkway?  Does everything except the up Cornish Riviera need to stop at Newton Abbot?  Could Taunton calls be removed from any services?

As for running trains fast from Penzance to Plymouth calling only at Truro, I can see this discouraging rail use if journey times are extended by people from other stations having to change at Truro or Plymouth.

The stop at Tiverton Parkway is essential so that all those people who have driven up from Cornwall can catch the train there!

[Zoe]

The stop at Tiverton Parkway is essential so that all those people who have driven up from Cornwall can catch the train there!

But people go by road as the train journey takes so long and the number of stops west of Taunton on most trains from Penzance doesn't help here.

[Trowres]

Woody, thanks for a very thoughtful post in response to my rather provocative question.

Many years ago, there was a TV sitcom titled "Never mind the quality; feel the width". I feel this phrase goes some way toward illuminating the current state of strategic planning for rail, where capacity is all-consuming and questions like "what are we really trying to achieve?" and "what are the side-effects?" have been largely forgotten.

There is a natural tendency for activity (where it can) to cluster in cities; the characteristics of rail tend to reinforce this trend, at the expense of the smaller cities and towns. Is this inevitable; is it a good thing? Is it what people want? These are questions that don't get sufficient attention.

There's some fairly recent work by Passenger Focus that highlights the importance of providing through journey opportunities. Using Tiverton as a railhead doesn't work for the many passengers trying to visit Cornwall. Don't give up on through journeys just yet, and do something to make it easier for people to get to those sad places like Wadebridge that lost their rail connections years ago.

[Trowres]

Woody is basically right, the Cornish mainline has seen massive passenger increases but i bet the average mileage per pax is about 25 miles, a few fast services is the only way to really compete with the car. ply-pnz can be done in around 75 mins with 3 stops that is a hell of a time saving without any investment in infrastructure. the other option could be tilting trains to shave a few minutes here and there.

Vacman, you have hit on an important point here. Around the country in general, journeys under 25 miles are the vast majority. Those middle-distance journeys are responsible for a large share of the downsides of car travel.

The more frequent trains on today's railway have helped to capture a growing share of these middle-length journeys. I still have the feeling that rail management would rather concentrate on the few percent of very long journeys.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

This is a problem for which there is no simple solution. Close some stations and you please people using the stations remaining open and upset those using the stations to be closed. One of the problems is that there does not appear to be enough public information on the use of stations. The annual entrances and exits stats give some indication of numbers but does nothing to tell you where these numbers are travelling to and from. Source and destination surveys are required but these are very expensive in staff resources to do. You need to know where the revenue is coming from, i.e. the numbers of high fares vs. low fare users to make a sensible judgement. This was where the Beeching 1960s closures worked in the dark, or at least if there was some detailed info, it was not very easily available to the public but I expect that was because the politicians of the day used such information selectively to achieve their political aims. The same may be true today. The other issue is that railway operations have high standing costs and relatively low marginal costs so a small change in user numbers can have a much bigger impact on profit (or loss) margins. This is why there are so many cheap fares available to attract the non-essential rail user with enough conditions to stop the essential user from benefitting from these margins. If you close the stations that have relatively small numbers of users, the loss in revenue could have a much bigger impact on profit margins. This problem is not confined to Cornwall. Here on the Cotswold Line there have been similar arguments (discussed here on the Coffee Shop) from Worcester users who would like to see stations in Oxfordshire having a reduced frequency service so that 15 minutes can be knocked off the Worcester to London travel time as a result of fewer stops. The problem is whilst it would probably attract some more people from Worcester to use the trains, the likely loss of revenue (even allowing for the lower average fares at the eastern end) would be much greater because a large proportion of rail users board CL trains in Oxfordshire. Trains with fewer stops on these lower population density areas that didn't stop would run with many fewer travellers on board and at a loss to the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) so in the longer run services would be closed as uneconomic. At the same time less frequent services at the eastern end would mean current rail users deserting rail. Fortunately most rail managers understand these complexities but daren't voice it because of the unwelcome noise they would create but it is the politicians who do not.

[IndustryInsider]

The annual entrances and exits stats give some indication of numbers but does nothing to tell you where these numbers are travelling to and from. Source and destination surveys are required but these are very expensive in staff resources to do.

Surely that data is available to train operators though?  We might not get to see it, but each sale has 'from' and 'to' information (with the exception of rovers) and a reasonably accurate assumption of what trains are most popular can also be gleaned from this by using either the train the ticket was issued for (advance tickets) or time the ticket was sold at (on the day purchases) backed up with operators own passenger counts.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

I agree with II. However this info is not available in the public domain as far as I know. I think it might be regarded by the current TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) that it would be confidential commercial information that it would not want to disclose, particularly at the current time when the Greater Western ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) is very current.

[broadgage]

Eventualy new trains will be used on London to Penzance services.
These will probably be some form of multiple unit, about which I have misgivings, as posted elswhere.

An advantage of multiple units though is that one could run a service that divides en-route, not to serve two different destinations as is common, but both portions to serve the same desinations though with different calling points.

Think for example of a 12 coach train running fast from London to Taunton where it divides.
Front 6 for Exeter, Plymouth, and Penzance.
Rear 6, all stations to Penzance.

That would give a fast service for the principle stations, together with a reasonable service frequency at the less used stations. No one would have to change, though some might choose to if this saved time.

Unlike dedicated fast and slow trains from London, this type of service would only take up one path on the congested part of the route near London.

If passenger numbers continue to grow one might even justify an 18 car train.
Front 6, fast to Penzance
Mid 6, slow to Penzance
Rear 6, terminate at Taunton.

[ellendune]

If passenger numbers continue to grow one might even justify an 18 car train.
Front 6, fast to Penzance
Mid 6, slow to Penzance
Rear 6, terminate at Taunton.

I think that might cause a bit of a problem with the length of platforms at stations like - Paddington?